[This message was posted by Hanno Klein of Deutsche Börse Systems <[email protected]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/298dc139 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I believe this can also be modeled with the existing Parties block until entitlements are available within the parties reference data. Acceptable and unacceptable counterparty roles are the basis which can be further qualified with the <PtysSubGrp> component which allows user defined values above 4000. I do not think that one of the standard values captures what you need but you could define PartySubIDType = 4000 = "Transaction" with PartySubID = "Settlement". This would express an (un)acceptable counterparty for a settlement transaction. I would prefer that to an extension of the party roles which are already numerous (>80). I am sure there are more use cases out there where someone would want to express "(un)acceptable X counterparty" with X being IOI, quoting, trading, clearing, settlement et.al. It would also represent only a temporary solution until entitlements are modeled. Regards, Hanno. > There is a need for a standard way to convey counterparty restrictions > to a third party over FIX and the PartyID block seems like the solution. > There are 4 types of restrictions: restricted/directed execution, and > restricted/directed settlement. > > The first 2 of the above can be accomodated using... 452=56 -> > Acceptable Counterparty 452=57 -> Unacceptable Counterparty > > A gap however exists for the settlement restrictions. Examples: I can > execute with BrokerA but it has to be given up for settlement. > (restricted) I can execute with anyone but it has to be settled through > BrokerA. (directed) > > - Example to restrict 4 destinations would look like this: ...453=4|452- > =56|447=D|448=Broker1|452=56|447=D|448=Broker2|452=56|447=D|448=Broke- > r3|452=56|447=D|448=Broker4... > - Example to direct to 4 destinations would look like this: ...453=4|45- > 2=57|447=D|448=Broker1|452=57|447=D|448=Broker2|452=57|447=D|448=Brok- > er3|452=57|447=D|448=Broker4... -Not having this block on an order > would indicate that there are no restrictions. > > Replacing the PartyRole (452) values would allow us to convey restricted > and directed settlement in a similar fashion thereby providing a > complete solution to the stated problem. This would require the addition > of the following 2 enumerations to PartyRole (452): 452=<TBD> -> > Unacceptable Settling Party 452=<TBD> -> Acceptable Settling Party > > Since we are expanding the enumerations as part of this expansion I > thought that this would be a worthy addition. > > Cheers, Zoltan [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
